SEBI

Additional Penalty for Repeated Delivery Default by a seller/buyer – SEBI

Additional Penalty for Repeated Delivery Default by a seller/buyer to be imposed @ 3 % of the value of the delivery default

SEBI had stipulated delivery default norms vide Circular SEBI/HO/CDMRD/DRMP/CIR/P/2021/35 dated March 23, 2021.

In order to put in place a suitable deterrent mechanism to address instances of repeated delivery defaults and to further strengthen the delivery mechanism and to ensure market integrity, SEBI has decided to impose additional penalty for repeated delivery default. 

It has been provided that in the case of repeated default by a seller or a buyer, for each instance of repeated default, an additional penalty shall be imposed, which shall be 3 % of the value of the delivery default.

The repeated default has been defined as an event, wherein a default on delivery obligations takes place 3 times or more during a six months period on a rolling basis.

The penalty levied shall be transferred to Settlement Guarantee Fund (SGF) of the Clearing Corporation. This penalty is effective after one month from the date of issuance of SEBI circular.

Read SEBI Circular SEBI/HO/CDMRD/DRMP/CIR/P/2021/619 Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

12 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

3 days ago
  • GST

A bland statement of ‘fraud or concealment of facts” in GST Notice u/s 74 not sufficient – SC

In GST Notice u/s 74, allegations should emanate from itself, a bland statement of ‘fraud or concealment of facts” not…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

For claiming deduction u/s 57(iii), test is of purpose and connection, not actual yield – ITAT

For claiming deduction u/s 57(iii) a reasonable and intelligible nexus should be established between the expenditure incurred and the income…

6 days ago